This article focuses on Foucault’s and Agamben’s readings of Augustine’s account of human nature and original sin. Foucault’s analysis of Augustine’s account of sexual acts in paradise, subordinated to will and devoid of lust, highlights the way it constitutes the model for the married couple, whose sexual acts are only acceptable if diverted by the will away from desire and towards the tasks of procreation. While Agamben rejects Augustine’s doctrine of original sin and reclaims paradise as the original homeland of (...) humanity, his reappropriation of paradise remains conditioned by our turn towards our true nature, from which we have been estranged by sin. Agamben’s politics of reclaiming paradise necessarily involves the demand for obedience to this originary model of human nature. It therefore follows to the letter Augustine’s description of paradisiacal sex, in which the will prevails over desire by applying itself to and curtailing itself. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:René Girard and Giorgio AgambenConvergent and Divergent Political and Theological ProspectsBart Leenman (bio)INTRODUCTIONUnfortunately, categorical violence (violence wrought against a scapegoat minority, like ethnic cleansing and genocide) is a perpetual human problem. Although many thinkers concerned themselves with the issue of categorical violence, I would like to discuss René Girard (1923–2015) and Giorgio Agamben (born in 1942), two contemporary thinkers who present intriguing perspectives on categorical violence. Rather than viewing (...) violence as an external element of societal life, they discuss the societal function of categorical violence while situating a sacred victim at the heart of their theories. Girard and Agamben are an unlikely pairing. Girard is renowned for his socio-anthropological mimetic theory, while Agamben is known for his political philosophy. However, despite these different perspectives, Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy share some intriguing similarities. For example, both thinkers employ an archaeological (anthropogenetic) methodology and situate their [End Page 203] thoughts against the background of Judeo-Christian concepts such as messianism, revelation, and apocalypse. However, the most striking similarity is their shared focus on violence and the sacred. Rather than viewing violence as an external element of human life, Girard and Agamben discuss the societal "function" of violence while situating a sacred victim at the heart of their theories. Girard situates this sacred victim (the scapegoat) at the heart of his socio-anthropological theory of violence, mimesis, and desire. In contrast, Agamben situates his sacred victim (the homo sacer) at the heart of his political philosophy. Despite this intriguing similarity, Girard's and Agamben's political and theological prospects diverge. Even though both thinkers turn to Judeo-Christian concepts in their political and theological explorations, they interpret this Judeo-Christian context differently. Girard relates his political–theological prospects to Christian revelation. In contrast, Agamben connects his political–theological prospects to a philosophical reading of St. Paul.In this article, I compare and discuss Girard's and Agamben's perspectives on violence, their sacred victims, and the theological and political implications of their theories. I argue that Girard's and Agamben's divergent theological and political prospects can be traced to their opposing definition of their sacred victims, which, in turn, derives from a fundamentally different ontological conceptualization of the sacred. Therefore, the research question arises: "What constitutes Girard's and Agamben's opposing definition of the sacred victim and their fundamentally different conceptualization of the sacred underlying this definition, and what are the political and theological implications of this fundamentally different conceptualization of the sacred?"In order to answer this research question, I begin by discussing the basics of Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy. Then, I provide an overview of pertinent academic literature concerning the comparison between Girard and Agamben. This overview demonstrates the academic embeddedness of Girard and Agamben and their discussion of a sacred victim. Furthermore, it helps us to explore the apparent similarities and fundamental differences between Girard's mimetic theory and Agamben's political philosophy. Following that, I explicate the fundamental differences and argue that one could trace these differences to Girard's and Agamben's divergent ontological conceptualization of the sacred. Finally, I argue that Girard's and Agamben's divergent political and theological prospects do not obstruct a comparison between Girard and Agamben but invoke further research concerning Girard, Agamben, and the ontological conceptualization of the sacred. [End Page 204]GIRARD, AGAMBEN, AND THEIR SACRED VICTIMSIn 1961, René Girard published Deceit, Desire and the Novel. In this book, Girard introduces the principles of his mimetic theory.1 These principles derive from a careful analysis of classic European novels. Until that point, Girard occupied himself predominantly with the study of literature, arguing that the classic European novels reveal a kind of (psychological–biological) truth. This truth has everything to do with the notion of desire and how it is portrayed in classic European novels. According to Girard, the classic European novels reveal that desire is triangular rather than bilateral.2 The subject (S) desires an object (O) through a model of mediation (M).3 In other words, people desire what the other desires, and desire is not authentic but mimetic. Although desire... (shrink)